Contrary to what many people are saying, when the national debt approaches the limit, it does not mean that the federal government suddenly won't be able to pay its bills.

Default on such debt need not occur if Congress passes and the president signs a law directing the Treasury to sequence our spending and prioritize the payment of interest and principal on the debt, as well as other critical budget items.

Simply guaranteeing that the government will pay its outside debts would not solve our fiscal crisis. But it would properly frame our fiscal challenge - as a choice not between more debt and default, but between more debt and responsible spending reductions that would ensure we don't trigger a default. And by signaling to world markets that the United States is serious, it would buy us time to restructure entitlement spending and end the Ponzi scheme being run by the federal government.

Setting aside the false threat of defaulting on our debt payments, the upcoming debate over raising the debt limit is a similar moment for Washington. Entitlement programs need to be dramatically reformed. Given no other choice, I believe a bipartisan consensus could be created around ideas such as means-testing the cost-of-living increase in Social Security benefits, capping and block-granting Medicaid payments to states, and moving Medicare to a more efficient, pay-for-performance model.

While national defense is obviously a top priority, even the Pentagon needs to pursue greater efficiencies by using priority budgeting to ensure that our military remains the most capable and effective in a dangerous world.

Last year's midterm elections demonstrated that the public is eager to cut the deficit. But every program has an interest group that will fight hard to defend it. We can succeed only if lawmakers are given no other choice.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, tell me again about how Pawlenty is a big RINO and how only by supporting S*A*R*A*H can we get conservative results.

Well so far, I have yet to hear S*A*R*A*H call the entitlements the Ponzi scheme that they are or suggest the major cutbacks and restructuring that Pawlenty is talking about here.

Most of what I hear from S*A*R*A*H is feel-good, we-can-solve-these-problems-painlessly talk.

What we need is a President who is not afraid to say that to get our economy back on the right track, we are looking at a couple of decades of belt-tightening austerity even if we do all the right things.

Most of what I hear from S*A*R*A*H is feel-good, we-can-solve-these-problems-painlessly talk.

Most of what I've heard from Sarah Palin since she resigned as governor is her calling Obama on the carpet over a number of issues. She is usually the first out of the gate to do so. Where has Pawlenty been on all this? Or Romney, or Huckabee, etal? Hiding because they don't want the flak that Palin and Rush have received. I don't vote for cowards.

Under no circumstances can we raise the debt limit, and under no circumstances can we deliver anything other than a balanced budget to the president. He can refuse to sign it, but we have to give it to him.

To do anything else will mean we’ve bought the Obama deficits and have made them our own.

And, as a practical matter, if you can’t cut spending when you are bankrupt and facing economic collapse, there really is no hope for you.

Means-testing Social Security cost of living increases? Terrible idea! Tim wants to reward the Federal government for provoking more inflation? Instead just tax the social-security payment if you have to. People in high tax brackets will pay more tax, but everyone will get their COLA.

Here is the reality. We take in about $2.2 trillion in tax revenue from all sources. This just covers our entitlement spending and debt servicing costs. Our total budget is $3.5 trillion. The remaining $1.3 trillion to operate the entire government, including DOD, is borrowed.

So how do you balance the budget this year or next? We will have to raise our debt ceiling regardless. We need a long term plan to cut spending, but it will not happen overnight.

That’s fair enough. She does need to come out with convincing specifics when she runs, and I hope we move on to that next phase soon.

But it’s also good to remember that any presidential candidate can roll out any platform they think will sell. As Reagan said, “trust but verify” by their record of character and what they have actually done. Also important is how effectively they can sell their platform directly to the public, because they’re going to need to go beyond the media to win public support for their policies directly.

Same here. After reading in Going Rogue how Sarah Palin approached the state budget in Alaska, I believe she is the best one to tackle the budget. Of course, she’ll need serious help from the House, Senate and the American people.

IMO, there are lots of politicians who would “like” to slash the budget but when push comes to shove, they cave. In Palin, I see someone who doesn’t cave. A media fabricated public opinion doesn’t seem to sway her.

She’s mentioned that she if for eliminating spending, reducing burdensome regulations and cutting taxes. I think that’s a good base to start from. The campaign hasn’t started yet.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.